Fourthly, That such provision tends to narrow the exercise of charity, and to weaken not only the ties of neighbourly kindness, but even of filial and parental affection.

Fifthly, That if a provision for the poor were prescribed by law, there could not be found in the several districts or parishes in Ireland, persons fit and able to carry into effect the provisions of such law.

Sixthly, That the abuses inherent in the English system of poor-laws, are evidence of the inevitable mischief to arise from a system of poor-laws, if introduced into Ireland.

Seventhly, That the sufferings of the Irish poor may be more beneficially and effectually relieved, by the correction of abuses in the raising and expenditure of the monies now levied by local assessment, and by that general improvement likely to arise from individual enterprise, and from publié works, to be designed and aided by government, and carried on under their direction and controul.

Eighthly, That Ireland is at present in a state transition, as England and Scotland were at former periods, and therefore she will, like these countries, work out of her present state of suffering, to a state of comfort or affluence.

Ninthly, That the poor have no claim founded on justice, to a provision being made for them at the expense of the rich, or of those possessed of property.

These are the arguments, so far as I have been able to collect them from "the evidence," employed by those who are opposed to any provision being made by law for the Irish poor. I shall now set down each of these arguments separately, and annex, by way of reply to them, the opinions of those witnesses who thought favourably of having some provision, however slender, secured to the aged and infirm-to the helpless and destitute of our population, and of attempting the relief of the unemployed poor.

It is alleged, "That the poor are so numerous, that if a provision be made for them by law, they will consume all the produce of the land; in other words, eat up the rental of the country."

There is a short reply to this allegation, for it is an allegation, but not an argument. The reply to it is this. That a legal provision for all the poor is not contemplated, or sought for, but only for that portion of them who are unable through age, infirmity, or other special cause, to provide their own support. Admitting, therefore, but only for

sake of argument, that the whole produce of the country would be required for the maintenance of all the poor, it does not follow that even a great portion of it would be necessary for the support of that class last above mentioned.

Again, if the country be in a state of transition from poverty to comfort, and if her poor are to find effectual relief in the expected improvements of her civil administration and internal resources, how, it may be asked, could a provision for the impotent poor not only counteract the relief anticipated from encreased employment and production, but also devour the whole rental of the country, especially when the average expenditure for the support of a pauper is ascertained not to exceed two-pence and a fraction each day?

But what appears conclusive on this point is, that the Irish poor are now preserved from actual starvation; it would not be just or true to say they are supported, but their lives are now generally preserved by the voluntary offerings of the industrious classes alone; and if these classes have been able hitherto, without ruin to themselves, to save their destitute brethren from perishing of want, with what colour of truth can it be alleged, that the additional expenditure to be assigned by a

Poor Law for the maintenance of paupers, would eat up the whole rental? There is great reason to suspect, that the persons who object on this ground to the introduction of a Poor Law, have either not duly considered the subject, or are influenced in their judgment by a fear that they would themselves be subjected to any portion of that unavoidable burthen of feeding the poor, from which they have hitherto successfully endeavoured to keep themselves altogether exempt.

These

persons are forced to admit that their own rentrolls have advanced two, three, or four hunded per cent. within the last forty years, the very period during which pauperism has been regularly progressing in Ireland; but when there is question of relieving that pauperism by the slightest deduction from those rent-rolls, they exclaim-"you will hand over our estates to be devoured by the poor." There is not truth, or justice, or Christian charity, or knowledge of the state of Ireland, in assertions like the above. They are the fruit of preconceived errors, or of a selfishness, odious alike to God and man.

Second objection is, "That whatever is given by the possessors of property to the maintenance of the poor, is deducted from a capital to be other

wise employed in productivé labour; and therefore, acts as a constant drain upon the resources of the country, or as a drawback from her ordinary and legitimate means of improvement."

This argument, if admitted to its full extent, would not only repeal the Gospel law of charity, but justify the savages in North America, who used to put to death, or leave to perish without regard to the voice of nature or ties of blood, those of their respective tribes, whò, through age or infirmity were unable to join in the chase, or share in their wars. It would invite us to adopt, among the maxims of our political economy, not the "non intercourse system" of Malthus, but the practical science of the Chinese, who are said to guard against domestic want, by the prudent exercise of infanticide. To such maxims, and to such practices, we, in this country, may one day be driven, if abstract theories be allowed to com. bat successfully, against the first principles of nature, and the first duties of man. What! if it be true that "there must be always poor in the land"if it be true that he "who sees a brother suffer want, and shuts the bowels of compassion against him, hath not the charity of God abiding in him:"—if it be true, that not to feed the